IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i5d10.1007_s40273-025-01476-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Taxonomy for Assessing Whether HRQoL Value Sets Are Obsolete

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

  • Bram Roudijk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Marcel Jonker

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Elly Stolk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Saskia Knies

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Zorginstituut Nederland)

  • Raoh-Fang Pwu

    (Fu Jen Catholic University)

  • Ciaran O’Neill

    (Queen’s University Belfast)

  • Kirsten Howard

    (University of Sydney)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Providing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) value sets to enable estimation of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) is important in facilitating economic evaluation and in supporting reliable decision-making about healthcare. However, as the field matures, many value sets across a range of HRQoL instruments are now old, based on potentially outdated valuation methodologies and preference data from samples that no longer represent the contemporary population. Having a clear strategy for identification and mitigation of obsolescence is important to ensure policy makers retain confidence in their country-specific value sets. In this Current Opinion, we develop a taxonomy of value set obsolescence. We then explore how the different types of obsolescence might be identified and how methodologists might work with local policymakers to address obsolescence and therefore ensure HRQoL instruments remain relevant for use. The taxonomy of obsolescence consists of four main areas: (1) the value set no longer aligns with current normative health technology assessment (HTA) requirements; (2) the methods used to generate it are no longer considered robust or adequately close to best practice; (3) the population composition has moved too far from the characteristics of the sample in which the original value set was derived; and (4) even after controlling for population differences, preferences are likely to have changed since the original data collection. Through identification of the type of obsolescence that applies in a particular setting, we then suggest a range of possible solutions to each, ranging from recommending particular sensitivity analyses, through reweighting of existing data to better account for population differences, to collecting new data for an updated value set. Obsolescence of existing value sets is driven by more than just time since data collection is often a matter of judgment rather than based on a clear definition. The taxonomy presented here provides a tool for assessing whether value sets are obsolete and what the appropriate response to this obsolescence should be. Working closely with local policymakers and involving discussions regarding the ongoing appropriateness of existing value sets should form an important part of future activities. This should include the consideration of updating value sets in contemporary populations using current best-practice methods. However, the benefits of updating value sets have to be balanced against the cost of doing so, including the challenges faced by policymakers when new values sets require a transition to new local decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Norman & Bram Roudijk & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk & Saskia Knies & Raoh-Fang Pwu & Ciaran O’Neill & Kirsten Howard & Nancy Devlin, 2025. "A Taxonomy for Assessing Whether HRQoL Value Sets Are Obsolete," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 473-481, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01476-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01476-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-025-01476-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-025-01476-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01476-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.